It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man arrested over fatal crash Facebook photos (UK)

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
BBC News


A man has been arrested after "distressing" photos of the aftermath of a fatal crash were posted on Facebook.
Lizzy Keenan, 30, was killed in the crash on Derby Road in Chellaston, Derbyshire, on Monday. Photos appeared online later that day.
Police said a 44-year-old man had been arrested under the malicious communications act.
Just seen this news report, and I'm assuming the guy posted pictures of the dead woman in the car crash.
Now if I was a relative of the deceased I would probably take matters into my own hands in a state of grief focused as rage against the guy, a human reaction I imagine most people would understand.
But I am a supporter of free speech and publication so I disagree with the arrest in this case.
Yes taking and posting those pics was repugnant to any decent person, but a crime because it caused distress to people who viewed them? I disagree.

MSM shows us many images of dead or dying people and I often find scenes a little distressing to see, but a crime to be punished by government? No, I just can't get behind that concept.

At what point does an image become so distressing it is a crime to publish it, and who decides that? The people who perceive distress or the state?
Thoughts welcome, and again, the guy would get a beating if he published pics of a dead family member of mine, but I don't think the state should decide that for me.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Does the UK have anything guaranteeing free speech like a constitution?


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
Does the UK have anything guaranteeing free speech like a constitution?


NO! That's why we had the Revolutionary War Redux in 1812. They were all like, 'You can say bugger off to the King and he isn't allowed to force feed you jellied eels?!?!?!', and we were like, 'Hell yes, bring it on biotches'.

I learned this in public school.


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   
under the "Malicious Communications Act"......yeah, that doesnt sound like it can be abused by the state to quash speech it doesnt like at all /sarc



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
hmmm.... bit of a difficult one that.

On the one had what he has done is vile yet on the other one has to say that taking a picture in a public space and publishing it is not in itself illegal. I personally think that the terms and conditions of the service he was using should be adequate to deal with this, Facebook should receive a complaint report and from that the pictures deleted and this idiot removed for their platform.

As to weather or not this was a crime, I am not too sure, I am no lawyer I would doubt that there is a specific law that prohibits a individual from publishing a picture of a dead person. Then again to arrest him for a offence means that the police must have some kind of grounds for it, interestingly it does not say if he has yet been charged which suggest the CPS haven't been involved so far. He could potentially then just get off with some kind of caution not to be a so stupid in future.

It is a crime under that act to publish material that is grossly offensive or words to that effect and I think sending around a picture of a dead girl would qualify for that so if you face a jury who also interpret that as being grossly offensive then yeah, I think its fair to say one could argue a crime was committed in breaching the malicious communications act.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Does the UK have anything guaranteeing free speech like a constitution?

Nope, and especially in digital communication, if someone is offended it is a crime.
Face to face communication is different, you can offend someone as much as you like, but it would be a crime to threaten or incite threats/hatred to others.
The law is a bit like this:
"I want someone to kill the Prime Minister" = Illegal
"The Prime Minister should die" = Grey area, possible arrest and investigation
"I won't cry if the Prime Minister dies" = Legal

...but no, free speech is not a thing in the UK, it is heavily regulated.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
We share agreement

And as I said, the guy's actions were terrible posting the pics, heck even taking the pics, but should it be a crime because it upset people...hmm, I struggle to support laws restricting his ability to do so.
He'd prefer jail time compared to what family and friends would dish out I expect.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Does the UK have anything guaranteeing free speech like a constitution?


Not quite but we have the human rights act and various other laws that protect freedom of speech.

True freedom of speech is a bit of a lie, I think whats more accurate is to talk about responsible speech. Even under the first amendment not all speech is protected, its a bit like that old thing of shouting fire in a packed theatre.

In the UK its much the same, you can say that you "hate the queen", you can say that you "want the queen dead" but when you actually start saying "I am going to kill the queen" you can't hide behind freedom of speech. In the UK we have los of very complicated laws that basically say that if I say something that is determined to be "grossly offensive" then I could face a criminal record depending very much on the circumstances.

Basically so long as your not shouting racist/homophobic sexist slurs at the top of your voice or inciting any kind of violence then your pretty much all good.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
under the "Malicious Communications Act"......yeah, that doesnt sound like it can be abused by the state to quash speech it doesnt like at all /sarc



They want the citizens to get used to the censorship under the guise of the "Malicious Communications Act". They use it for something that was really poor judgement so that citizens will agree on a base emotional level, then ever so slowly it will be used for more and more censorship.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Sounds like the authorities are looking for a reason to use this law and charge people.

Facebook just removing the pics and maybe banning him should be enough. But charging him for taking pics and posting them online?

That is what people do now..



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
BBC News


A man has been arrested after "distressing" photos of the aftermath of a fatal crash were posted on Facebook.
Lizzy Keenan, 30, was killed in the crash on Derby Road in Chellaston, Derbyshire, on Monday. Photos appeared online later that day.
Police said a 44-year-old man had been arrested under the malicious communications act.
Just seen this news report, and I'm assuming the guy posted pictures of the dead woman in the car crash.
Now if I was a relative of the deceased I would probably take matters into my own hands in a state of grief focused as rage against the guy, a human reaction I imagine most people would understand.
But I am a supporter of free speech and publication so I disagree with the arrest in this case.
Yes taking and posting those pics was repugnant to any decent person, but a crime because it caused distress to people who viewed them? I disagree.

MSM shows us many images of dead or dying people and I often find scenes a little distressing to see, but a crime to be punished by government? No, I just can't get behind that concept.

At what point does an image become so distressing it is a crime to publish it, and who decides that? The people who perceive distress or the state?
Thoughts welcome, and again, the guy would get a beating if he published pics of a dead family member of mine, but I don't think the state should decide that for me.


One of the things that annoys me is that people are so quick to film and photograph tragedies. In some ways I think it desensitizes us. Back in the day, you had to look really hard or rent "Faces of Death" to really see any snuff like video or really see gory images of people.

Along comes the internet, facebook, social media, and cell phone cameras and now you can literally find that stuff with a few clicks and often times minutes after it happened. Go to liveleak or bestgore. All kinds of videos, photos, etc of people being killed, dismembered, etc. It is almost like the first thing people do when they see a car accident or something is whip out their cell phones to film.

I can't imagine the anguish that family members may feel seeing a loved one's final moment(s) in public media. However, something that is a public act like a car crash, parents may not have any recourse at least here in the US.

The problem with any laws restricting this stuff is who decides what is malicious communication?
edit on 23-8-2018 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
free speech is just that the right to speak freely, the right to write something about someone then becomes libel (i think), he could have shown who ever of his sicko mates on his phone, but to post online is for ALL to see for ALL eternity, one hell of a difference.

The right of free speech often gets confused online but listen to the words "speech" not "free to write what I want about someone" and defamate their character

I can say what I want to my wife/girlfriend or even neighbour about who I want but I can not write the same nonsense and publish it without the offended having a right to dispute my nonsense



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

"Grossly offensive" is a slippery slope in charging someone with a crime. Some find porn offensive or the picture of a Gay couple kissing and God knows we have the professionally offended squalling about pretty much everything, so where does it end?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It is a poorly drafted law but I just hope we don't get the thread dogpiled by the Yanks who piled into the Tommy Robinson threads.....



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

You mean the way everyone else dogpiles American politics? I mean, AMERICAN opinions about BRITISH politics counts doesn't it?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Is anyone really surprised that enlightened principles (like free speech) cannot stand up to reality when someone gets their feelings hurt?

Social engineering, perhaps?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: oldcarpy

You mean the way everyone else dogpiles American politics? I mean, AMERICAN opinions about BRITISH politics counts doesn't it?


Yes, of course they count. Except when they are just plain wrong, of course.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Which episode of Black Mirror is this, again?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Personally I'd say it is against some human right to put people in jail over publishing a photo.

Then again I'm the kind of guy who would like to know what this guy would think if I dug up some deceased family member of his and post selfies with them having a fun time at the cemetery...

Peace
edit on 2018pAmerica/ChicagoThu, 23 Aug 2018 11:15:48 -0500am311520188 by operation mindcrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

free speech and libel are 2 different things in law, speech is usually to a small audience libel is when someone writes something which has a wider audience, IIRC if you have to issue an apology because of something you said it must be done to the same size audience which you initially said it in front of.

I think it happens a lot when people assume free speech includes written words which it does not.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join